Israel’s ban on allowing media into Gaza feels increasingly self-defeating

The widespread reports of mass starvation in Gaza have confronted Israel with the greatest moral challenge of its war against Hamas. Its repeated denials, without compelling evidence, have plunged the government’s reputation to a new low. They have also raised questions about the wisdom of its decision to ban Western media from independent reporting in Gaza.

If The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, BBC and others had been allowed in, would their resources, fact-checking, and comfort with contradiction have unearthed the evidence that Israel has failed to produce, to cast credible doubt on the starvation that it still claims is a Hamas fabrication?

Or would they have confirmed the existence of widespread hunger, including famine in parts of Gaza, declared by the UN food security body last week?

Until this war, generations of Israeli leaders seemed indifferent to the negative images that accumulated from years of allowing Western media to report on the conflict inside their borders. As long as military and political support continued to flow from the US, it didn’t really matter. But the sheer barbarity of October 7 crossed a line, precipitating Israel’s most controversial war. Perhaps anticipating the nature of the conflict, the government banned Western media from unaccompanied entry into Gaza.

It was a controversial step, one which feels increasingly self-defeating. The official rationale was that journalists in Gaza would be in danger; they would endanger soldiers by reporting on troop positions; and that it was too dangerous for Israeli personnel to be present at the crossings to facilitate media entry to Gaza. As a result, journalists can only enter if they agree to be accompanied by the IDF.